While, sadly, we are not yet at the point where actual inquisitors are examining evil satanists/statists/gnostics and so on, it can be argued that eventually we will get there.
Secondly, theoretically, any member of the armed forced or law and order can potentially double as secular versions of inquisitors.
Vox, in his recent post on why he will never relax the rules on his platform of Social Galactic concerning clean speech, and certainly will not be making any exception for foul-mouthed Owen Benjamin, or anyone else, made a very important statement:
The problem is that most justifications for initial change not only sound reasonable, they are reasonable.
He is correct, but I do feel it might be useful for the average normie to perhaps have a little more explanation, in order not to fall into the usual binary trap.
For example: Let us assume that one lives in a country where the penalty for murder is death.
Sounds great initially. No murders very likely and if some happen the perpetrator is soon dealt with.
However, what about a dad who catches and kills a serial killer pedophile. According to the rules, he should get the death penalty. But it is clearly against the concepts of justice and fairness. So we may be in lined to make a rule “except if you kill serial murderer pedophiles”.
And then along comes one that says what if it was just two kids the pedo has killed? Is that serial? Hmmm… ok yes.
What about just one? Yeah ok fine. And most people would still be ok with that but then it goes to “well my 99 year old grandmother was in awful pain from cancer and she asked me to end her life on video, so I did…”
And you see that before too long, a couple of generations or so, it would become ok to shoot someone for stealing bread.
So… what is a good inquisitor to do?
Well, depending on his level of authority and ability to act in the specific situation, he could simply let that heroic dad go. Pretend he didn’t see anything. In the modern age, with cameras and DNA and so on this becomes very difficult. Unless you have 2000AD style “judges” the situation is likely to end up in “the machine”.
And once you are in that system, chances are you’re not getting out unless you have a good inquisitor style judge. Why do I say inquisitor style? Because in reality, the inquisition was far fairer than any current court in the modern era.
But that aside, the inquisition ruled using Roman Law, which is a far superior legal system than anglo-saxon so-called “common law”.
The reality is that Roman Law works on the Principle as the large frame, but the details being relevant to each specific case. So, while we can all agree that murder is wrong, certain murders are far worse than others. And some probably require a medal and a small lifelong pension, or at least a large bounty.
A judge acting under Roman Law has a lot of latitude in how he evaluates a crime or an injustice, and, if the judge is a good, honest and fair one, his judgements will generally be correct and appropriate.
This needs to be balanced, however, by the needs of society. For example, during the Spanish inquisition, contrary to popular belief, homosexual sodomy was not usually punished legally. The individuals might be shunned or ridiculed if their proclivities were made public, bit in general only pederasts of a violent nature were killed, and then only too few of them: 163 in total. Similarly, what you have been told about the thousands of pretty women being burnt at the stake for refusing the advances of corrupt priests, is not true either. The grand total of women burnt at the stake for witchcraft in the 200 year period of the Inquisition was… drumroll… 12.
Yes. Not quite the feminist holocaust it’s been presented as. But you know what did happen in Protestant countries? Up to 700 executions a year for something like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family.
Protestantism is binary.
Catholicism is human.
So, while the Inquisitors need to be wise and merciless with the heretics, impostors, frauds, and evil persona with nefarious designs, they need to know when to be absolutely inflexible with rules that may appear extreme to the secular degenerates that compose out society today, and when to let that supposed “violent monster” get a pass, because in reality he is just a man doing what no one has the courage to do nowadays, which is, to right the wrongs that should never be allowed to go unpunished, like the rape of children, as one example.
And beware of the “reasonable” idea that the death penalty is barbarous and never to be inflicted on anyone. It is a lie. The death penalty is just and entirely appropriate for certain crimes and it is, and always has been, and always will be, Catholic dogma that the death penalty is a necessary part of any just and actually any Catholic legal system.
Beware the “reasonable” man. He’s more likely to be a Freemason than the “unreasonable” man that acts as per Catholic dogma.
Mr. Filotto,
Hello, I enjoy reading your blog and watching your YouTube videos. I especially liked this post as I agree with just about everything in it. Indeed, sometimes the death penalty is necessary and to impose a lesser sentence would be an example of a grave injustice. I believe that if the sentence of death is imposed the condemned should be allowed a 6 month window to repent of his sins and (hopefully) die in a state of Grace. I believe that to give such a long time before execution is an example of Christian mercy.
When my stepdad was in the Air Force, years before he married my mom, he found out that a fellow soldier had had sex with his then wife. My stepdad then found the man and beat him so severely as to put him in the hospital. I never got the full story of what happened but it seems my stepdad received a fairly lenient sentence (possibly due to extenuating circumstances). I suspect the judge understood and sympathized with my stepdad. Shades of Roman Law in that case it seems!
Likewise with one of my Irish ancestors in 19th century America. One day he came home from work and his wife revealed to him that a salesman had stopped by to try to sell her something. In fact this salesman had entered the house and closed the door to talk with her! This didn’t sit right with my Paddy forebear. Men in those days were keen to protect their honor and their standing in the community and to have the neighbors see some strange man enter the home of man who was off at work, even for only a few minutes to talk to his wife, was likely to inspire rumors about infidelity. A grave scandal! So my Irish ancestor found out where the salesman worked, showed up at his office and threw him out of a second story window. He also received a fairly lenient sentence.
Thank you and God bless you!
Christus Vincit! Christus Regnant! Christus Imperat!
I am not sure that the soldier who had sex with your stepdad’s then wife is entirely at fault! Did you stepdad’s wife just happen to slip and fall under him somehow?
Personally, I have never really understood the general Protestant idea that if a man catches his wife in bed with another man his rage is limited to the man. I mean, sure, the guy would probably get his ass kicked just because he’s there and it’s considered somewhat acceptable, but ultimately it is the woman who is really at fault.
Having been in relationships, and married to, women that were objectively considered beautiful by the vast majority of men, I always expect the woman to be hit on by other men, and this has always happened to women I have been with, but it is up to them to rebuff any advances. Of course, should the advance be of a certain type, then it is quite acceptable for them to simply step back and let me educate the rude idiot in question with the end of my boot by seeing how far up his ass it gets when kicked adequately hard.
Mr. Filotto,
You must be clairvoyant! My stepdad was a protestant at the time of the assault although if I remember correctly his then wife fled into hiding when he discovered the infidelity and went on the warpath. I don’t know what he would have done if he had got ahold of her. My stepdad was a big, brutal man raised as a good ol boy down in Kentucky and when his blood was up he was terrifying. He eventually converted to Catholicism (the Novo Bogus version) after he married my mom.
In regards to your Maxwell’s Equation post my brother is a mathematician so I’ll email it to him and hopefully he’ll respond. When it comes to math I’m a bit of a tard so what should I ask him?
God bless you!
Christus Vincit! Christus Regnant! Christus Imperat!
What interests me is Maxwell’s ORIGINAL equations, untainted by Heavyside’s later truncation/changes, and understanding them as Maxwell either did or intended or presented them. You’ll note that on SG there was already someone trying to “dismiss” Bearden’s take on it, but Bearden is the only guy who wrote some basic information that made sense to me.
The speed at which detractors, confusionists and deceiver come out of the woodwork as soon as this sort of stuff is mentioned is incredible. The same character has posted here too, though I am not going to approve the comment since he claimed to have read Bearden’s books and concluding Bearden didn’t know what he was talking about, but when asked which books exactly he had read… crickets…